Nothing new in Wisconsin, as the GOP-controlled legislature continues to play hardball, rather than cooperatively working to allow citizen boards to keep politics at arm’s length from state agencies.

The Senate Committee on Financial Institutions and Sporting Heritage revealed its partisan agenda when it voted not to confirm four appointees to the Natural Resources Board, and that vote was upheld by the GOP-controlled State Senate.

The Senate effectively fired the four NRB appointees of the Governor, and he quickly appointed four new citizens to the NRB.

All the votes followed partisan lines, except that Republican Senator Robert Cowles did vote to allow the Governor’s appointees to serve, saying the governor had that right.

From a diverse viewpoint, the Senate turned down a black woman, a woman from northern Wisconsin, a white male, and a person with ties to and representing Native Americans, though it did recommend confirmation of a white male who represents the agricultural arena.

What happened to ideology that the Natural Resources Board/Conservation Commission should represent a diversity of backgrounds of citizens who are concerned about natural resources and the environment?

The goal should be to confirm people who want to do the right thing by setting natural resources policies for future generations.

Legislators indicated the four nominees who were NOT confirmed, were appointed by the governor because they shared his progressive agenda and would have voted in favor of the Department of Natural Resources’ proposed Wolf Management Plan.

When the Senate committee held a public hearing on the original nominees, three of the five indicated they didn’t think the state needed a hard number on wolf population limits, while another hedged her answers to the committee.

Is it any wonder why a nominee would give a truthful answer knowing that they will be rejected if they don’t give an answer desired by the committee?  If so, this is pay-to-play, rather than sifting and winnowing for dedicated public servants.

Was it also a major stalling factor as the Republican legislature tries to keep tight control after losing an election for governor, attorney general, and a recent Supreme Court judge who appears to take a more progressive view on issues?

The DNR staff, which is supposed to present its recommendations based on science, recommends the plan without a fixed population goal allowing the state to manage the population based on yearly changes.  This is similar to what DNR is doing now with deer and bears.

Past history has shown when DNR issues hard population estimates, critics come out of the woodwork and the estimated numbers do nothing but attract fire from opponents.

Again, politics becomes an important cog in the wheel of natural resources management in Wisconsin.  It didn’t use to be that way.

Had the committee found a problem with one person there might be some reason to think it was a lack of natural resources background, but firing all four just confirms the smell of politics.

For instance, Sandra Dee Naas was not only a hunter and angler, but she is a certified trapper education instructor, serves as an Ag and Natural Resources instructor at Ashland High School and owns an environmental consulting firm in Ashland.

Was the fact that Naas did not receive the committee’s support for confirmation pay-back because the previous DNR administration invited Naas to make reports at the NRB meetings when then board member Dr. Fred Prehn refused to step down at the end of his appointed term and continued serving (the first time that ever occurred on the NRB)?

At subsequent NRB meetings the Secretary invited Naas to give a report during the Secretary’s comment time, which could have been seen as an “in your face” move to the Republicans, since Naas was appointed by a Democratic governor.

Jim VandenBrook served as the executive director of the Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association for six years, and water quality section chief of the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection for 26 years.

Dylon Jennings brought in the perspective of the Native American population, and Sharon Adams, perhaps had the least background in traditional hunting/trapping experience, but is experienced in fishing and is involved in bringing new groups of people into natural resources.  This has been a major effort of the DNR and NRB in trying to attract new people to natural resources, and offset the loss of license revenue as “traditional” hunters and anglers age out.

When we look back at previous NRB members, we have seen many average people who had the opportunity to make a contribution and help set policies for natural resources in Wisconsin.

Adams would be only the second African American to serve on the NRB and Jennings would have been the first Native American.

Is there any reason other than pure partisan politics why four of five nominees didn’t get the chance to represent their constituencies and bring new perspectives to natural resources policies?

The State Senate saw a wolf lurking in the back of the room, but front and center was plain old partisan politics, which should be put on the list of extirpated species.